The U.S. military can force its personnel to wear the blue beret of the United Nations and serve under the world body's command, a federal judge ruled.

Judge Paul Friedman upheld the military's conviction of former Army specialist Michael New, who refused to don the U.N. cap and shoulder patch and to serve in a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia nearly 10 years ago, the New York Sun reported.

New argued that the Constitution and the law governing U.S. participation in the world body prevent the president from sending American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress.

New, whose defiance became a cause celebre in the mid-1990s among U.N. opponents, launched a website that included his picture with the message, "Michael New was right. ... Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue."

He was court-maritialed and convicted in 1996 and given a "bad conduct" discharge from the Army, which later was upheld by military appeals courts.

Judge Friedman wrote in his 35-page decision that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court," the Sun reported.

New's father told the paper an appeal is likely.

"We're disappointed," Daniel New said. "It's not printable what I want to say."

In addition to appealing to the Constitution and the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, New's lawyers argued that forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment.

Friedman, dismissing New's claims, said he could have pursued his legal points without defying his commanders.

"Petitioner had numerous avenues, besides direct disobedience, by which to challenge that order," he wrote.

Cliff Kincaid, author of a book about New's crusade -- "Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier?" -- told the Sun the judge was right to suggest Congress could have stepped in.

"The Congress should have done more, but Friedman should have overturned the illegal order and New's bad conduct discharge," Kincaid said.

Kincaid objected to President Clinton's order to American troops to participate in the Macedonia mission and President Bush's unwillingness to change the procedure.

"U.S. troops deployed on U.S. missions under Bush still wear U.N. markings on their uniforms, including a U.N. shoulder patch and beret," Kincaid told the Sun. "Even though they serve under a foreign U.N. commander, he insists they are still somehow under U.S. command. It doesn't add up."

Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, contended the president's authority to defend America would be weakened if New prevailed.

"You'd be undercutting our ability to work with our allies. You'd also be weakening the power of the commander in chief of the United States," he said.

O'Hanlon argued American troops in past wars have been temporarily put under tactical foreign command more than under the U.N., with little objection.

New's father, however, believes the case has given the Pentagon a "bloody nose," causing it to look elsewhere to staff U.N. missions.

"Pakistanis and Indians are cheaper than Americans and there's no political fallout if they die. So let's just outsource it all," he said derisively.

Yet another travesty and gross hypocrisy. This thread is especially relevent in light of the one that delves into the actions of Scott Ritter and the active support, both financial and otherwise, from various individuals, including Jimmah Carter, in his Anti-American activities. This guy get a BCD and Ritter gets a pass with a reward. The thread is:

"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

3
posted on 12/26/2004 1:36:12 AM PST
by endthematrix
("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)

Judge Friedman wrote in his 35-page decision that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court," the Sun reported.

Shouldn't he have recused himself if he is not competent to judge on the subject?

"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

If true, it is in direct contradiction to the oath sworn on entering the US Military:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Michael New would have won his case if the republicans in the house and senate had stood by his side. i am thankful I was never required to wear that putrid blue beret. Klintoon that POS that keeps on stinking on the world.NSNR

Judge Freidman blocked investigations into Al Gore's buddhist temple fundraising. Also he was an assistant to Lawrence Walsh in Iran-contra investigation. He was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. His best known decision is FEC v. GOPAC, 897 F.Supp. 615 (DDC 1995), in which he ruled against GOPAC. Judge Friedman was also an attorney in the law firm of White and Case for almost two decades.

Judge Friedman wrote in his 35-page decision that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court,"

Funny how Ginzy, and Sandra and Souter have such a 'jones' for international norms, but Friedman somehow can't decide if an American soldier should not be forced to don the uniform of some corrupt stateless entity?

"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

I did not know this.

SUCH AN OATH IS ENTIRELY UNACCEPTIBLE

No American soldier, in future, should be forced to swear such a ridiculous oath - period.

I think we are nearly unanimous in our opinion that US soldiers should never be under foreign control, or serve the flag of another nation, and CERTAINLY NOT the UN, but there is one final consideration to be taken into account.

Our troops undergo the best combat training in the world. They are highly motivated and dedicated warriors. To dress them up in baby blue hats (of FRENCH derivation, no less) is a supreme insult and demeans their status as the worlds most fearsome fighting force.

It's also unforgivably bad fashion sense.

/tic

33
posted on 12/27/2004 12:17:59 AM PST
by shibumi
("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)

I think we are nearly unanimous in our opinion that US soldiers should never be under foreign control, or serve the flag of another nation, and CERTAINLY NOT the UN, but there is one final consideration to be taken into account.

In World War II, was there no mixing of U.S. and British forces and commands?

35
posted on 12/27/2004 8:06:37 PM PST
by supercat
(To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)

As to the state of rapport between the British and American commands in WWII, I would refer you to the movie "Patton". I am assured by several senior members of our local American Legion Post that the portrayal in this movie is entirely accurate. The supreme Allied Commander was an American (Eisenhower) and the Supreme NATO Commander since the war has always been an American General.

This does not mean that there was no cooperation in specific cases, or out of immediate necessity, but the ultimate authority has always been the American Chain of Command. (At least until Bubba got hold of it!)

36
posted on 12/27/2004 11:50:39 PM PST
by shibumi
("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)

"I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

I have never heard of a US Officer swearing that OATH... It is my understanding that US Officers SUPPORT UN Missions while maintaining their allegience to the US Government ONLY.. if I am wrong please let me know.. I intend to look into this...

ok until I read that.. I will be checking into this.. if ANY U.S. Soldier has ever taken that oath (while serving on Active Duty) I intend to make some noise.. My guess is that is the oath for UN personnel only...

I know I am going to get flamed on this, but... It appears he knew what he was doing and was going against the direct orders of his superiors. He took the risk that he would be punished for his actions, and that is what happened. I am in full agreement with him, but at the same time, he was disobeying orders.

This does not mean that there was no cooperation in specific cases, or out of immediate necessity, but the ultimate authority has always been the American Chain of Command. (At least until Bubba got hold of it!)

On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), a policy directive outlining the administration's position on reforming multilateral peace operations. PDD-25 defined requirements that must be satisfied before the U.S. will participate in international peacekeeping operations. In one of PDD-25's provisions, the Clinton Administration clarified the position of the United States with regarding command and control of United States military personnel participating in a multilateral peacekeeping operations. The Directive defines "command" of United States armed forces and "operational control" of those forces, distinguishes between the two, and maintains that the President never relinquishes "command" over United States military personnel, even though he he may place United States military personnel under the "operational control" of a non-U.S. commander for limited and defined purposes. If the U.S. relinquished "command" over those forces then they wouldn't be able to recall them or replace them with other units. But that didn't happen.

Given those parameters then the U.S. frequently placed whole armies under foreign operational control during World War II, while maintaining overall command over those forces.

"Given those parameters then the U.S. frequently placed whole armies under foreign operational control during World War II, while maintaining overall command over those forces"

I am not asking this to be agrumentative, I merely wish to gain further understanding. Perhaps you can help.

I was born in 1948, too late to have witnessed these things first hand. My father served in the Pacific theater. He was a SeaBee. Other than reading and some historically based movies I have seen, my knowledge of the military operations comes from personal accounts I have gotten from Veterans of that era. The situation as I understand it was one in which US troops not only were NOT under foreign control, but that a friendly rivalry existed between the Allied Armies over who could dominate the field of battle more effectively.

Specifically, there was the well publicized competition between Patton and Montgomery, in which Patton chose to ignore directives from Allied command to claim specific victories for his army.

Did not the ultiumate command AND control of all Allied armies rest with Eisenhower? Has it not been a condition of our participation in NATO that the NATO commander is always an American General?

Again, I am not asking to be argumentative. If my information is wrong I would appreciate you correcting me!

PS: Regarding Clinton's Directive: Leave it to Bubba to parse words to appease both sides while doing the bidding of the UN! This sounds like something Kerry would have thought up. (Except he probably would have specifically put our boys under the French flag!)

43
posted on 12/29/2004 6:59:42 AM PST
by shibumi
("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)

Did not the ultiumate command AND control of all Allied armies rest with Eisenhower? Has it not been a condition of our participation in NATO that the NATO commander is always an American General?

Then you have to ask, does the NATO commander 'command' those NATO forces under him or does the ultimate command lay with the countries providing them? I think that the second is true because ultimately the German forces answer to the German government and the British answer to the British government. The NATO commander will exercise operational control, just like the U.S. command in Iraq may exercise operational control over the coalition forces there. But command in the ultimate control form of the word? No. And I believe that this was also true when Eisenhower ran the show. Eisenhower exercised operational control over the units but in the end the ultimate command authority went up their chain of command to their King or their Commander-in-Chief. In any case, there were other Supreme Commanders of other areas, one of which was Admiral Mountbatten who commanded the forces in the Southwest Pacific area, including China, Burma, and India. If Eisenhower exercised command over the allied forces in Europe then one would have to say that Mountbatten exercised command over the allied forces in his area, including Americans.

In World War II, was there no mixing of U.S. and British forces and commands?

You are bringing up a rational point in this thread? Fool!

Seriesly, of course there was mixing. After Ike left Italy in 1943, General Maitland Wilson was appointed Supreme Commander of the Mediterranean Theatre. General Alexander commanded the 15th Army Group under him, which consisted of the 5th US Army and the 8th BritishArmy.

FDR actually wanted Marshall to command all of the Western Fronts, but Churchill vetoed that. FDR then decided Ike would command Overlord instead of Marshall.

I'd be ROTFLMAO if it weren't for the fact that it may actually come to that! I can see a day when the ARMED and FREE people of the US have to assert their soverignty against the the UN. That is why I consider it so important that US troops are never under their command, control, influence or whatever other parsimonious term the Clintons and Kerrys of the world want to use.

48
posted on 12/29/2004 7:38:24 AM PST
by shibumi
("In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - John Galt)

Shouldn't he have recused himself if he is not competent to judge on the subject?

This whole thread is ironic in the extreme. What actually happened is that the judge "recused" the judicial branch from this case because this is a command question for the President. The plaintiff tried to get the judicial branch to limit the President's authority as C-in-C, and the judge didn't buy it. Certain court cases are deemed "political questions" that courts will not take, because they belong in the Executive and/or Legislative Branches.

Extreme example -- the President orders a Marine Regiment to be placed under Chinese Command and sent to Tibet to help suppress an uprising. If the Marine General Commanding refuses to follow orders from the President to obey the Chicoms, he's committing mutiny. If he goes to court, he'll lose. The issue has to be decided politically -- in this extreme case, Congress would no doubt step in and cut off funding immediately. But it's not an issue to be decided by a judge. If it was, then the judicial branch would be the C-in-C, not the President.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.